contents

SCROLL DOWN FOR THE ESSAYS BELOW
 
Anti-Superstition - Science seems to rule in the modern world. Yet science is the opposite of the previous, more spiritual society. In its insistence that this previous world was wrong, does science itself have a serious problem when looking at the world - a problem that could prove dangerous?
 
Dialectic & Opposites - The dialectic was devised as a means of debate, but some philosophers went on to apply it to the processes of history, with disastrous consequences. What was wrong with the dialectic? And in realising what that error was, could we have a new understanding of the processes of history which could assist us towards peace today? A peace achieved by a realisation that in identifying an enemy, we literally define that enemy by the degree of validity we give it.
 

anti-superstition 

 
 We are so in thrall to science that, usually, what they say goes. From matters medical, to engineering, to statistical analysis, the media and public lap up data and assume it to be true. Occasionally, we have a stance that disagrees with the scientific oligarchy, but if it is not based on science, we tend to ignore, marginalize or ridicule counter argument. But there is a danger in automatic belief in science which is almost ignored; and ignored because most people don’t realize the implication.
   This danger does not concern what is said by science, but what is not said. Indeed, in many areas of life, what is not said can be far more dangerous than what is. For instance, a classic example of this danger concerns the BSE crisis of the 1990s. In the early days of the crisis, science dismissed the problem of a species-jumping spongyform affecting man by the blank statement that ‘there is no evidence of a problem.’
   The reader must analyse just what is being said here. The insinuation is that science has examined everything there is to examine, and concluded, with absolute certainty, that there is no problem. But in reality, what is being said is completely different. Because man can never know everything, all the statement can realistically imply is that science had not yet carried out research capable of finding the problem.
   The reasons why such research is not done could be legion – incompetence, lack of interest, or insufficient expertise or equipment to do the job. But the problem is, science demands that nothing can ‘be’ unless it can be proved to be by science. Hence, if science is not yet advanced enough to prove or disprove something, science simply discounts the problem as if it didn’t exist.
   In any other area of life, reality accepts the existence of eventualities that may not be expected. If this was not so, no one would insure against car crash, burglary or accident. It is the unexpected that can bring disaster, so we take precautions to cope with it when it comes. But in science, no such precaution is taken. That which is not proved does not exist. End of story. And the greatest of dangers are dismissed in cavalier fashion. But why does science take such an approach?
   The scientist will tell you that science cannot deal with supposition. Yet this is a fallacy. The behavioural gene, evolution through natural selection, the subatomic particle and  Big Bang are all suppositions with inadequate evidence to prove them. So something else must be going on. And we can find an answer by analyzing the mind-set of society in the past.
   For millennia society was ruled by superstition. Throughout the world, things could ‘be’ because of belief, rumour or decree. Above all else, science banished this world, placing reason in its place. And although this was a good idea, it went too far. Sometimes things must be suspected of ‘being’ even if they cannot be proved, and sensible precautions taken to protect. But science is so fearful of a return of superstition that it will not allow such commonsense to exist. But the question must be asked: is this rational science, or fear of the return of superstition? If the latter, we may be being infected by something just as dangerous; a process I would call ‘anti-superstition.’
 
© Anthony North, July 2006
 

dialectic & opposites

 

 One of the central concepts of philosophical debate is the dialectic. First devised by Plato, it is a simple system. An idea is had and a thinker puts it forward for debate in the form of thesis. For the debate, an opposite stance is required, which becomes the antithesis. The two sides are debated in order to find common ground between the two. This becomes the synthesis; which in turn becomes a new thesis, for the system of debate to continue onward.
   Central to debate and intellect itself, the dialectic was, however, purloined from purely debating purposes by a number of philosophers. Central to the process was the German philosopher, Hegel. He placed the dialectic into history, arguing that the great clashes of civilizations were a dialectical process, a civilization rising, causing the rise of its opposite, and inevitably clashing in order to produce a new, better civilization. To him, the ultimate civilization was the Prussian State, setting out the first ideals of Nazism through his naivety.
   Another German philosopher, Marx, incorporated such ideas into his Dialectical Materialism. He argued that the historic dialectical clashes were really between the classes, the final stage being the classless state. This was, of course, the birth of Communism.
   The truth of these dialectical clashes seemed to come with World War Two, with a huge dialectical clash between right wing Nazism and left wing Communism. Yet if the dialectic in history was correct, the two should have synthesized. But instead there was an outright winner in Communism. The dialectical form of history was also polluted by the existence of the English speaking west. America and Britain were also victors – a third force to snooker the dialectical divide.
   One way of getting out of this historical dialectical error is to lump Fascism and Communism together into an idea of collectivist states. If this is done, then America and Britain were the opposite forces of individuality. Yet by the end of the Cold War, collectivism was dead, individuality the clear winner, again making nonsense of dialectical history.
   Dialectical history is clearly wrong. Indeed, the easy path of the dialectic in debate also contains a major error. A synthesis is more likely to be packed to one side due to the powers of a particular orator. Hence, the free flow of opposites into synthesis can never be a smooth affair. But if the dialectic is analysed in a new light, a system of history and debate can be outed which gives the illusion of dialectical progression.
   It is all to do with the duality of the world in which we live. Put simply, in order to know it is light, we must have an understanding of dark. Basically, light cannot exist without dark. And the same applies in nearly everything - we cannot have up without down, or left without right, or hot without cold. In effect an extreme thing cannot exist without an opposite. And applying this concept to historical change, we can argue that if an extreme form of civilisation exists, it can only do so with the existence of its opposite.
   In a way, we can argue that one opposite fuels another, making a form of clash inevitable. This can be seen in the world today. Following the Cold War, America rose as the only superpower, and it continues to congratulate itself. The nature of American extremism is based around materialism and individuality. These extremes, if I am correct, cannot exist without their opposite, which would inevitably be spirituality and collectivism.
   Spirituality and collectivism are, of course, the central elements of Islam and, in the west itself, the rise of new spiritual movements from New Age to Christian Evangelicalism. Hence, if my theory of history automatically producing opposites to extremes is right, these will inevitably grow to challenge the power of American materialism and individuality.
   Since 9/11 it is becoming inevitable that such a rise of America's opposite is on-going. And it is inevitable that the eventual outcome will be an ever greater clash. Or maybe not.
For if an opposite rises in line with the extremism of its opposite, we can find in this theory a possibility of an end to conflict itself - for if the more powerful opposite learns to moderate itself before the clash becomes inevitable, the urge to extremism will similarly decline in its opposite. Hence, this clash could yet be saved by a change of mood in America itself.
   Whether this will happen is unlikely. But regardless, it would be useful to realise this theory of history as an indication of the future. The Dialectic as placed in history by Hegel and Marx was wrong. It inevitably led to conflict. But my variation of the dialectic, where an opposite rises in line with the extremism of its opposite, allows us a way out of conflict by curbing our own extremism. The lesson of history is: do we have the will, or the courage, to lessen our extremism in the face of such a threat?
 
(c) Anthony North, July 2003